Petro: Off-duty officers must obey ''plain sight'' requirements; certain others
July 19, 2004
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Off-duty police officers would not be required to obtain permits to carry hidden guns, but they would face the same restrictions as permit-holders going to bars, day-care centers and government buildings, according to an opinion issued Monday by Attorney General Jim Petro.
Under the three-month-old law, people are prohibited from carrying concealed handguns into places where liquor is served, inside a school safety zone and certain other buildings. An off-duty officer could carry a concealed weapon into some restricted buildings if conducting official business, Petro said.
The officer would face the same restrictions as permit holders in a vehicle, keeping the weapon locked in a container or inside a holster in plain view, the opinion said.
Applicants for permits must pass a criminal background check, must not have been committed involuntarily to a mental health facility and complete a 12-hour safety course.
The opinion is an interpretation of the law but subject to a judge's ruling in a specific case. Petro issued the opinion at the request of Lorain County Prosecutor Gary Bennett.
Commentary:
Ohio's law enforcement officers are now about to experience just what it is like to have to attempt to observe the provisions inserted by the Ohio State Highway Patrol and Bob Taft.
When off-duty (and not acting within the scope of their duties), police officers must now:
When off-duty (and not acting within the scope of their duties), police officers may no longer:
Now that off-duty police officers are no longer allowed to carry concealed firearms into courthouses unless conducting official business, perhaps more courthouses will be willing to provide storage facilities for officers and CHL-holders.
Now that off-duty officers are subject to some of the same offensive, egregious and even dangerous provisions Ohioans For Concealed Carry lobbied against, we suspect the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement unions or lobbying groups may suddenly have a very new take on support for removing these provisions in the legislature.
And we suspect Ohio law enforcement officers may soon have a very clear understanding of how difficult CHL-holders have it attempting to obey the confusing wording inserted into this law by the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
We understand that, due to certain liberal law enforcement groups and other factors, there is a perceived chasm between law enforcement and the general population. OFCC is committed to closing that gap. We also believe that law enforcement officers and private citizens largely share the same goals.
One of the ways to start closing the gap is to end the preferential treatment afforded to any group/entity. If private citizens and law enforcement officers are asking for the same changes, the law will be improved much sooner.
Perhaps this is just the sort of Ohio CHL education some law enforcement officers need.
Click here to download the complete opinion by Attorney General Jim Petro (.pdf).
UPDATE! OFCC Vice President Bryan Torok, a police sergeant, has analyzed Congress' HR 218, which many officers hoped would give them relief from the new Ohio law, and states as follows:
- If law enforcement is looking to HR218 to fix the current problem with CCW for
LEO, HR218 may be a step in the right direction, but it doesn't do it.
Consider this:
----------------------------------------------
Sec. 926B. (b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of
any State that--
- (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
----------------------------------------------
So, off-duty/retired LEO are going to be just as restricted as a CHL holder. In
fact, where State law prohibits CHL holders in government buildings, HR218
includes "government property, installation, building, base, or park."
As for training: LEO must have qualified by the State course in the previous 12
months with the type of firearm that will be carried.
The Litigation Chair of OFCC's Office of General Counsel concurs, and adds that "this law could not fix Ohio's internal problem. It is triggered by interstate commerce. So, arguably, right now an off duty LEO from PA will have more liberal carry rights in Ohio than an Ohio LEO. The LEO needs to cross a state line to have relief under this law."
Ohioans For Concealed Carry looks forward to working with Ohio's law enforcement groups to ensure that all citizens, not just law enforcement officers, receive relief from some of the egregious provisions inserted into Ohio's CHL law by the Ohio State Highway Patrol and Bob Taft. All citizens deserve equal protection under the law.
- 4733 reads
